There is no predicting what swamp of nonsense you intend to drive into. Drive away, I'll wait until you are forced to back out.

[CENTER]

Quote:

Global Warming Hysteria Building

Less than a year after the release of Gore's propaganda film, An Inconvenient Truth, a democratic Congress is poised to pass new legislation against America's latest Hobgoblin (due to arrive in the 22nd century) 'climate change' caused by humankind.

Those who appreciate the carnival of American politics - as Mencken said "The art of running the zoo from the monkey cage", look for some exciting Senate hearings. The warming evildoers (pick your side) will be on trial, and so called "science" will be buried by polemics, biased experts, and down-right con artists.

Among the high points will be:

The Stern Review and the author, an extremist (and seriously flawed) report on the consequences of warming.

The IPCC Policy Summary, released before the supporting 'facts" are cooked to support its conclusions. The actual report is embargoed till May of 2007, so the message will be "Trust US".

It promises to be great fun as it seems the IPCC may have lost the last bit of pretense of objectivity and gone pathological...

First, in an attempt to deflect false allegations of fallacies by a certain poster, I'd suggest to anyone else reading this, that they review these threads started by said individual, to determine said individual's lack of objectivity;

I'm not sure one even has to read these threads, as the titles themselves, indicate a gross absence of objectivity, on the part of said individual. Note, that the first three threads are locked.

Now, I'll begin with the meat of this post by quoting Tol's paper;

[CENTER]

Quote:

At an early stage in their academic training, statisticians are confronted with the Disraeli-Twain notion that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. The point is not that statistics lie and statisticians are liars. The point is that any fact can be presented in different ways, and that such presentation affects the inference drawn. Statisticians are taught this so that they will not be lured into unsupported conclusions. However, statisticians do not take an Oath of Bernoulli, and some statisticians do use these skills to mislead their audience.

Quote:

The IPCC misled by omission.

[/CENTER]

In the following, I will show that these two statements, are true for the SPPI, or to paraphrase Tol's second quote;

If you read my previous post on #88, then you know that #88 submitted 3,063 comments (a verifiable statistical outlier with respect to all other commenters) to the IPCC peer review process, that #88 is getting on in years, and that #88 is extremely biased when it comes to the subject of AGW.

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), formerly the Center for Science and Public Policy for the Frontiers of Freedom [1], is a conservative think tank founded by former Republican senator Malcolm Wallop.

[/CENTER]

These links help us to establish, conflict(s) of interest, inherent biases. the likely modus operandi (or MO), and likely position(s) in all things related to AGW, as should be all to obvious, to even a casual observer.

Now, I'll return to McLean's non-peer reviewed "paper."

The glaring flaw of this "paper" is the basic fact that it doesn't include the comment statistics from the first order draft (or FOD) of the 11 chapters that form the body of the IPCC AR4 WG1 report (the science).

Why is this of any relevance, you say?

It's relevency is that the FOD comments ARE an inherent part of the overall IPCC peer review process, and cannot be omitted by fiat or apparent biases of the author(s) and their organizations making specious claims with respect to the IPCC peer review process.

Total number of comments = 32,492 a fairly large number relative to McLean's primary focus on the 11 chapters of SOD comments (11,544 or 35.53% of total comments). Not very representative of the entire data set by any metric.

Ok, so let's go back to #88 (or The OutLIER as I affectionately like to call this individual);

#88 total comments = 3,063 (in first place by a LONG shot)
In 2nd place is one Michael MacCracken, with total comments = 885
In 3rd place is the Government of the USA, with total comments = 689 comments (McLean, p. 16)

(I'll admit, that the above ranking may change once I sum up a few more commenters. but I'm fairly certain of these first three positions)

From McLean's "paper" there were a total of 2,010 comments (I need to check these totals, so I'm relying on McLean's numbers for now) made by government entities to the 11 chapters of the SOD. Government bodies, per se, did not make ANY comments to the 11 chapters of the FOD.

Note: Government entities did not submit comments to the FOD, similarly government entities were the only commenters on the SPM FDR.

So why should #88 be considered an outlier, you ask?

Well, 1) This individual has 3.46 times the number of comments as the next highest individual, 2) this individual had 2,226 comments versus 3,037 comments from all government entities combined, in areas where both had comments, and 3) this individual had 3,063 comments versus the 3,037 government entities comments for all comment sections except the SPM FDR.

Note also, that while the Government comments are largely provided, by what I would assume are those governments subject matter experts (or SME), we don't know the breakdown distribution by individual and frequency of comments.

Thus to do a meaningful analysis of individuals, all comments made by individuals is the only proper context, and that individual outliers must be excluded from this type of meaningful analysis to avoid skewing the results.

Note again, that McLean's "analysis" using actual individual comments from primarily the SOD, in fact includes only ~30% of the total individual comments, a biased and non-representative sample, to be sure.

Furthermore, if we were just to look at the 11 chapter commentary (FOD plus SOD), then the total number of comments is 23,936, broken down as: 16,280 FOD (69.01%) and 7.656 (31.99%).

Either way, McLean leave nearly 70% of the entire individual comments untouched and excluded from this grossly biased "paper" (which I might add has not been peer reviewed by neutral observers, or published in well respected peer reviewed scientific or statistical literature (if at all)).

I'll leave this rather lengthy post with a few other basic statistics, the total number of pages of commentaries was over four thousand pages (~4,080 pages) in length while the entire IPCC AR$ WG1 report (the science) is under one thousand pages (996 pages) in length.

Cheers.

[CENTER]
|
|
|
▼[/CENTER]

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

First, in an attempt to deflect false allegations of fallacies by a certain poster, I'd suggest to anyone else reading this, that they review these threads started by said individual, to determine this individual's lack of objectivity;Cheers.

While in that swamp, you might pause for a moment and tell us what the heck your pont is - so heavily obscured by acronyms and a flurry of numbers of your making I think most of us find it impenetrable ranting.

(FYI - my prior posts on the wrong-headedness of creationism, as well as Al Gore and the IPCC suggests something just awful - I have opinions.)

Also, I would suggest you try for at least 1/2 the organized presentation of the SPPI paper so we can through you a rope...till then, his points stand. The IPCC chapters were not reflective of any science wide consensus; they were mainly edits and clarifications, and did not have "hundreds" of reviewers of each chapter.

I suggest you turn your attention to Chapter 6 on Paleoclimate. The review process from several perspectives are well documented and the dubious methods illusistrated.

While in that swamp, you might pause for a moment and tell us what the heck your pont is - so heavily obscured by acronyms and a flurry of numbers of your making I think most of us find it impenetrable ranting.

(FYI - my prior posts on the wrong-headedness of creationism, as well as Al Gore and the IPCC suggests something just awful - I have opinions.)

Also, I would suggest you try for at least 1/2 the organized presentation of the SPPI paper so we can through you a rope...till then, his points stand. The IPCC chapters were not reflective of any science wide consensus; they were mainly edits and clarifications, and did not have "hundreds" of reviewers of each chapter.

I suggest you turn your attention to Chapter 6 on Paleoclimate. The review process from several perspectives are well documented and the dubious methods illusistrated.

... you clearly lack a sharp intellect. Seeing as it is your swamp to begin with. It's also apparent that you've never written a technical report. I can see you behave very irrationally and subjectively, when the tables are turned, or in any situation where others disagree with your subjective and emotional positions.

I have, as clearly as I'm capable, noted the major flaw in McLean's so called paper, omission of ~70% of the individual comments which were submitted during the FOD. Because of this single FACT his "analysis" is clearly an attempt at "bias with intent." The sample is biased going into any analytical statistical procedures, in other words, GIGO.

I have layed out the glaring biases of all parties involved, I'm not making this stuff up, you have links, to all that is you and your ilk.

Show me where McLean included the FOD commentary, or show (i. e. "make up") a valid rational for exclusion of the FOD commentary.

And yes, I've looked into Chapter 6 myself, without the aid of AGW contrarian talking points or the AGW contrarian blog-o-smear, TYVM.

Cheers.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

I just felt that *OD was a more appropriate acronym than *OR. Sorry, for any confusion I may have caused.

Add those five numbers together to get 32,492 total comments w/responses for the entire IPCC AR4 WG1 outside review process.

Note, since I've authored a fair number of technical reports, that the above numbers would not reflect extensive internal reviews by (and amongst) the contributing authors, prior to the outside review process (i. e. before the release of the 1st and 2nd drafts).

Garbage In, Garbage Out (abbreviated to GIGO) is a phrase in the field of computer science. It is used primarily to call attention to the fact that computers will unquestioningly process the most nonsensical of input data and produce nonsensical output. It was most popular in the early days of computing, becoming less relevant to programming given that the computer program development process became sophisticated to a point where self-correcting software alleviated much of the problems of the 1950s.
.
.
.
The term can be used in any field in which it is difficult to create a good result when given bad input.

[/CENTER]

I've used that acronym since 1972, when I taught myself BASIC on the Dartmouth time share system. I'm truly surprised you've never heard that expression before.

TYVM = Thank You Very Much

It's something I picked up from my Latino buddies while in grad school ~30 years ago.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

In other words, comments (w/feedback) on the first and second drafts of the 11 chapters of IPCC AR4 WG1...

Previously I offered a couple of links to demonstrate a simple point, that the IPCC process does not give a comprehensive review of all valid scientific opinion, nor is it even a consensus view of the state of climate science. It is, at most, a view of the UN, government appointees, and a majority of climate scientists. Such a document may have its uses, but establishing the last word on the subject is not one of them.

First, the document as a whole is not "supported by thousands of scientists", nor is it the product of thousands of reviews of the whole product. These kind of inflated claims are derived from totaling all reviewers of every chapter (most of whom ONLY commented on some element of one chapter, the not whole doucment) and totaling every comment, even if the reviewer suggested but a few typographical changes and commented on only a few sentences of a single chapter.

In unpeeling the onion, one ought to note that the document is actually a product of three working group reports which each divided into 11 to 20 chapters. Each chapter had one or more comments by reviewers. Typically the number of reviewers of a chapter numbered from 50 to 75, most of whom ONLY commented on a single chapter and 1/2 of whom made just 1 to 5 comments. And more than half of all comments were insubstantial typo corrections, suggestions for tables, praise, or requests for a change in formating.

Nor were they necessarily "independent" or "outside"; a chapter reviewer was often the samechapter sub-section author who, apparently, did not have an opportunity to work out concerns within the socalled "working group" (95 of them). Others were representatives of governments. And finally, some were actually outside independents that had not contributed to the report.

Second, reviewers did not provide "consensus". Rather lead authors of a chapter were given the comments and they either rejected, noted, or accepted these comments with little explanation. Most of the time they provided no additional feedback to reviewers, nor did they solicit any discussion with them. There was no interactive process used to resolve differences with reviewers; and unlike peer review in journals, IPCC authors do not have to address and satisfy critiques of their work. (So much for claims of consensus).

Third, because "reviewers" have little authority (compared to real peer review) it is up to the Chapter editor(s) to address controversial issues and concerns. Both editors and lead authors were expected to coordinate, and were "encouraged to supplement the draft revision process by organizing a wider meeting with principal Contributing Authors and expert reviewers," and they were informed that "Review Editors will need to ensure that where significant differences of opinion on scientific issues remain, such differences are described in an annex to the Report."

However, there is little evidence that Chapter editors actually did much. Each editor was required to submit a report on his/her activities and comments on the Chapter work. Of the 26 Review Editor reports obtained for WG1, ALL BUT ONE IS A FORM LETTER. Similarly, of the 43 "reports" for WG2, all but five were FORM LETTERS.

It is not surprising, the personal experiences of reviewers was not what one might have expected if Chapter editors were doing more than signing form letters for "reports". Economist Ian Castles reported that "the key point is that there were no annexes to chapters recording remaining areas of disagreement."

Aynsley Kellow, a reviewer of Chapter 19 (climate impacts), put it boldly "...there was one telling point. In response to my criticism that the chapter focused on negative impacts to the neglect of any positive effects of climate change, the response was made that this was because the IPCC had decided this was the way it should be. In other words, a political decision was made to ignore positive consequences.'"

Tol, Kellow, Castles, McIntyre and others confirm that the document did represent the opinion of lead authors (many who delighted in highlighting their own studies) but not much more.

In other words, the inflated claims of IPCC consensus hawkers are - to put it mildly - hookum.

Good question. WG1 (working group one) is the one most lay people focus on because the discuss the science of warming. It was divided into 11 chapters (plus a summary for policy makers and a technical addendum), and each chapter has section authors. I think there were 600 authors for WG1.

If and how they interacted with one another is not clear, although it is odd that 95 of them felt compelled to become reviewers of their own chapters - suggesting that outside their own section writing there was not the interaction one supposes. Attempts to extract the working papers from editors of certain chapters have been made - without results (the editor claims being whatever papers there were have been deleted from hard drives and/or destroyed). That, of course, seems rather odd as IPCC rules say everything (e.g email) is to be kept and archived.

What is known about WG1 has only come to light due to the determined efforts of Steve McIntyre and Dave Holland, each independently filing FOI and/or protests - the results of which were the comments being published.

Good question. WG1 (working group one) is the one most lay people focus on because the discuss the science of warming. It was divided into 11 chapters (plus a summary for policy makers and a technical addendum), and each chapter has section authors. I think there were 600 authors for WG1.

That's a lot of authors. A really whole lot. And that's just one of the three working groups.

Quote:

If and how they interacted with one another is not clear, although it is odd that 95 of them felt compelled to become reviewers of their own chapters - suggesting that outside their own section writing there was not the interaction one supposes.

Why would one suppose any interaction at all? We don't know that 100 of them didn't volunteer to be reviewers. 600 reviewers would be unwieldy. You seem to be implying that this "odd" bit weakens the document because it suggests a lack of interaction. I don't know why that would be the case, and even you admit that you simply don't know the degree to which they interacted with one another in other venues.

Quote:

Attempts to extract the working papers from editors of certain chapters have been made - without results (the editor claims being whatever papers there were have been deleted from hard drives and/or destroyed). That, of course, seems rather odd as IPCC rules say everything (e.g email) is to be kept and archived.

That is odd. But it doesn't suggest some nefarious conspiracy to perpetrate a fraud on the UN. 600 authors in WG1 and 100 reviewers is an awful lot of sheep to herd.

Quote:

What is known about WG1 has only come to light due to the determined efforts of Steve McIntyre and Dave Holland, each independently filing FOI and/or protests - the results of which were the comments being published.

OK. Again, their unwillingness to release papers to certain people and organizations isn't surprising. Although I can't imagine why the drummer from Judas Priest and a guy who runs an oil and mineral exploration company would need those documents. But oh well. I like transparency, but a lack of it doesn't mean that there is corruption.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

That's a lot of authors. A really whole lot. And that's just one of the three working groups.

It's a very large document, even the executive summary is quite large (I'll insert the numbers here shortly).

Quote:

Why would one suppose any interaction at all?

Well, the presumption is that (according to the process) there is going to be interaction, including meetings with reviewers. That did not happen.

Quote:

We don't know that 100 of them didn't volunteer to be reviewers. 600 reviewers would be unwieldy. You seem to be implying that this "odd" bit weakens the document because it suggests a lack of interaction. I don't know why that would be the case, and even you admit that you simply don't know the degree to which they interacted with one another in other venues.

Given the lofty claims of a universial and vetted process that includes significant dissenting opinion, the burdon of proof (trust) is dependent on the IPCC to establish it by more than declarations.

The review process was not unwieldy because it was not treated as a review process for a journal paper. Peer published climate authors and researchers were invited as reviewers, including "the guy who ran an oil and mineral" business (Steve McIntyre). Reviewers were not charged with reading whole chapters or the document, nor did their objections have to be addressed; they were merely invited to make any comments they liked. Some, like McIntyre, made extensive comments - most of which was curtly 'noted' or 'ignored' (but not all). And where significant disagreement remained no annex was provided as required (such as in Chapter 6, where McIntyre commented).

That 100 authors also became "independent" reviewers of their chapter outside the WGroup, suggests they had little mutual interaction to resolve such issues. Again, not indicative of consensus building.

Quote:

That is odd. But it doesn't suggest some nefarious conspiracy to perpetrate a fraud on the UN. 600 authors in WG1 and 100 reviewers is an awful lot of sheep to herd.

I agree. What it suggests though, is groupthink and benign neglect by Chapter editors. One is left with the impression that each author (or co-authors) were left to write a section to their own liking and brief comments were passed along. Some were circular filed, some "noted", and some "accepted". Chapter editors basically did not want to get to deeply involved, and signed the form letters that "all is well".

So, my point is that yes it does represent the majority view of each section. It does not represent consensus on the whole document, nor on the issue of human caused global warming (which, by the way, I believe to be true). Nor does it represent significant minority views.

Quote:

OK. Again, their unwillingness to release papers to certain people and organizations isn't surprising. Although I can't imagine why the drummer from Judas Priest and a guy who runs an oil and mineral exploration company would need those documents. But oh well. I like transparency, but a lack of it doesn't mean that there is corruption.

But as I said, without it (or an audit) then their claims of vetting must be viewed as suspect.

It's a very large document, even the executive summary is quite large (I'll insert the numbers here shortly).

Um. OK.

Quote:

Well, the presumption is that (according to the process) there is going to be interaction, including meetings with reviewers. That did not happen.

How do you know that? You can't on the one hand claim that there were no meetings and then on the other complain that they haven't released enough information about the process.

Quote:

Given the lofty claims of a universial and vetted process that includes significant dissenting opinion, the burdon of proof (trust) is dependent on the IPCC to establish it by more than declarations.

BurdEn.

I agree. If they claimed there were significant dissenting opinions, it's up to them to show that Steve McIntyre and that crazy-looking economist from Amsterdam contributed. Oh wait.

Quote:

The review process was not unwieldy because it was not treated as a review process for a journal paper.

Do you know this?

Quote:

Peer published climate authors and researchers were invited as reviewers, including "the guy who ran an oil and mineral" business (Steve McIntyre). Reviewers were not charged with reading whole chapters or the document, nor did their objections have to be addressed; they were merely invited to make any comments they liked.

Awesome.

Quote:

Some, like McIntyre, made extensive comments - most of which was curtly 'noted' or 'ignored' (but not all). And where significant disagreement remained no annex was provided as required (such as in Chapter 6, where McIntyre commented).

What is "significant disagreement"? One guy making a fuss? Two guys?

Quote:

That 100 authors also became "independent" reviewers of their chapter outside the WGroup, suggests they had little mutual interaction to resolve such issues. Again, not indicative of consensus building.

We don't know this.

Quote:

I agree. What it suggests though, is groupthink and benign neglect by Chapter editors.

I hardly think those are the only two options.

Quote:

One is left with the impression that each author (or co-authors) were left to write a section to their own liking and brief comments were passed along. Some were circular filed, some "noted", and some "accepted". Chapter editors basically did not want to get to deeply involved, and signed the form letters that "all is well".

No. YOU are left with that impression. Everything else follows that assumption.

Quote:

So, my point is that yes it does represent the majority view of each section.

Groovy.

Quote:

It does not represent consensus on the whole document,

With 600 people authoring it, could it?

Quote:

nor on the issue of human caused global warming (which, by the way, I believe to be true). Nor does it represent significant minority views.

Again, what does "significant" mean?

Quote:

But as I said, without it (or an audit) then their claims of vetting must be viewed as suspect.

Suspect? No. Unknown? Sure. Problematic? Sure. But it does not follow that the conclusions reached are faulty or inaccurate.

Here's the real question:

If I adhere tile to a 4x4 piece of particle board that will not be walked on, how soon can I apply grout? Do I really have to wait 24 hours? Or can I grout it just as soon as the adhesive sets up?

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

How do you know that? You can't on the one hand claim that there were no meetings and then on the other complain that they haven't released enough information about the process.

I know what they SAID they intended to do versus what we know they did not do (e.g. publish significant dissent in annexs)...and we know the reported personal experiences of those who were critical reviewers but did not participate in any wider interactions as anticipated by the IPCC.

Does that mean that there is a pool of reviewers that were treated differently? It is possible. However, I think it highly unlikely that of all the commentary and critics I read who WOULD normally be the source of criticism that would require resolution, that no one reports having been asked to do more than submit comments. And when we read Chapter editor reports on activities in "form letters" reporting nothing of substance, and background working documents are not provided because the were "thrown away", then the evidence points in one direction.

Indeed, if one were a bank auditor and the bank resisted turning over the books, made reports via form letter disclaimers, claimed working papers were destroyed, and then it was found that a sampling of transactions with complaining customers show disingenuous practice - well, I'd lay money that it is systemic miscreant behavior at work.

Quote:

I agree. If they claimed there were significant dissenting opinions, it's up to them to show that Steve McIntyre and that crazy-looking economist from Amsterdam contributed. Oh wait.

Dissenters have already shown that they had significant disagreements - one only turn to the relevant 'annexes' to confirm that those disagreements are not there. It is now up to the IPCC to explain it.

And yes, I know that the review process was not the same as a journal.

Quote:

What is "significant disagreement"? One guy making a fuss? Two guys?

A significant disagreement over a chapter's summary of the literature and the balance of it's evaluation by one or more parties ought to be noted - per the IPCC guidelines. McIntyre and Mckitrich are well known for their views on Paleoclimate proxy studies - so much so it required an NAS meeting to evaluate their (and Von Storch's) challenge to the usual views. An issue further legitimized when the Chair of the NAS statistics group sided with M and M.

If anything merited an annex of a chapter, or a group meeting with reviewrs, their work did. The IPCC talks a good game about inclusiveness on contrary views, they just don't show it.

Quote:

We don't know this.

(see above)...I'm always more impressed when a lawyer defends his client as being innocent than when he says "you can't prove it".

Previously I offered a couple of links to demonstrate a simple point, that the IPCC process does not give a comprehensive review of all valid scientific opinion, nor is it even a consensus view of the state of climate science. It is, at most, a view of the UN, government appointees, and a majority of climate scientists. Such a document may have its uses, but establishing the last word on the subject is not one of them.

The "paper" sponsored by the SPPI is totally bogus as I've clearly shown. Each had a single author, The Tol paper suffers from being published in a demonstrably weak and less than well respected journal which is clearly biased and suspect in it's peer review process. If Tol is as great as you think he is, then he should have published his opinion in a well respected journal, he did not.

AS to the SPPI sponsored "paper" or "analysis" it wasn't peer reviewed and is also written by a single author, who's credentials are unknown, and who's "analysis" omits ~70 of the overall total of individual's comments to the total IPCC AR4 WG1 body of comments.

Quote:

First, the document as a whole is not "supported by thousands of scientists", nor is it the product of thousands of reviews of the whole product. These kind of inflated claims are derived from totaling all reviewers of every chapter (most of whom ONLY commented on some element of one chapter, the not whole doucment) and totaling every comment, even if the reviewer suggested but a few typographical changes and commented on only a few sentences of a single chapter.

Please cite where the IPCC AR4 claims "supported by thousands of scientists." I can't seem to find that particular claim anywhere with respect to the IPCC AR4 effort. Perhaps you meant "reviewed by thousands of scientists."

Quote:

In unpeeling the onion, one ought to note that the document is actually a product of three working group reports which each divided into 11 to 20 chapters. Each chapter had one or more comments by reviewers. Typically the number of reviewers of a chapter numbered from 50 to 75, most of whom ONLY commented on a single chapter and 1/2 of whom made just 1 to 5 comments. And more than half of all comments were insubstantial typo corrections, suggestions for tables, praise, or requests for a change in formating.

Source? If it's the SPPI or Climate Audit or of that ilk, I'll pass. No AGW blog-o-smear need apply.

Quote:

Nor were they necessarily "independent" or "outside"; a chapter reviewer was often the samechapter sub-section author who, apparently, did not have an opportunity to work out concerns within the socalled "working group" (95 of them). Others were representatives of governments. And finally, some were actually outside independents that had not contributed to the report.

Ditto above. Source? If it's the SPPI or Climate Audit or of that ilk, I'll pass. No AGW blog-o-smear need apply.

Quote:

Second, reviewers did not provide "consensus". Rather lead authors of a chapter were given the comments and they either rejected, noted, or accepted these comments with little explanation. Most of the time they provided no additional feedback to reviewers, nor did they solicit any discussion with them. There was no interactive process used to resolve differences with reviewers; and unlike peer review in journals, IPCC authors do not have to address and satisfy critiques of their work. (So much for claims of consensus).

Ditto above. Source? If it's the SPPI or Climate Audit or of that ilk, I'll pass. No AGW blog-o-smear need apply.

Quote:

Third, because "reviewers" have little authority (compared to real peer review) it is up to the Chapter editor(s) to address controversial issues and concerns. Both editors and lead authors were expected to coordinate, and were "encouraged to supplement the draft revision process by organizing a wider meeting with principal Contributing Authors and expert reviewers," and they were informed that "Review Editors will need to ensure that where significant differences of opinion on scientific issues remain, such differences are described in an annex to the Report."

Ditto above. Source? If it's the SPPI or Climate Audit or of that ilk, I'll pass. No AGW blog-o-smear need apply.

Quote:

However, there is little evidence that Chapter editors actually did much. Each editor was required to submit a report on his/her activities and comments on the Chapter work. Of the 26 Review Editor reports obtained for WG1, ALL BUT ONE IS A FORM LETTER. Similarly, of the 43 "reports" for WG2, all but five were FORM LETTERS.

Meaning what exactly? It means that those that replied, read their sections and found it to be up to their standards. You also would have a substantial body of SME's who did read the various drafts, but didn't deem their comments would change the drafts substitutively. SME's who read the drafts, but didn't comment or reply weren't counted in the reply/comments numbers.

Quote:

It is not surprising, the personal experiences of reviewers was not what one might have expected if Chapter editors were doing more than signing form letters for "reports". Economist Ian Castles reported that "the key point is that there were no annexes to chapters recording remaining areas of disagreement."

Or perhaps it means that there was no disagreement, and thus no annexes. D'oh!

Quote:

Aynsley Kellow, a reviewer of Chapter 19 (climate impacts), put it boldly "...there was one telling point. In response to my criticism that the chapter focused on negative impacts to the neglect of any positive effects of climate change, the response was made that this was because the IPCC had decided this was the way it should be. In other words, a political decision was made to ignore positive consequences.'"

Another individual voicing their opinion. D'oh!

Quote:

Tol, Kellow, Castles, McIntyre and others confirm that the document did represent the opinion of lead authors (many who delighted in highlighting their own studies) but not much more.

So, in total you have a handful of individuals who disagree with the IPCC process. Where are the thousands of SME's who disagree with the IPCC process? I'll tell you where, their nowhere to be seen, because they don't exist.

Quote:

In other words, the inflated claims of IPCC consensus hawkers are - to put it mildly - hookum.

What "inflated" claims are you referring to, the ones between the lines, that only you and the AGW contrarians make up.

With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.

[/CENTER]

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

Where does your drinking water come from? What floodplain zone are you in?

Do you know what the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act are? Do you know what they do for PEOPLE? Without environmental laws, many of the people would be royally screwed in terms of health and safety. Many times air regs are protecting workers more than OSHA regs. This point was driven in during my OSHA 8-Hour Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response annual refresher training yesterday. Look up the company McWane if you really want to know. Suffice to say, that the environmental laws were what brought this outfit to justice and literally SAVED LIVES, when the company was forced to implement safety procedures as well as indoor and outdoor air quality controls.

What sort of educational and professional background do you two have?

Who is protecting you from your house flooding out, or TCE in your tap water or VOCs leaking in to your house, giving you cancer? The EPA.

Have you two read an environmental regulation or statute? Go do it. Look for the phrase "human health". Also look for the phrase "environmental health and safety" or "EH&S" in corporate' structures. Come back and reply. I'm interested in your replies because this is my life goal: How can I make people care about the environment? Yes, I care about birds. And people. People just don't know what is good for them. That's why I'm liberal. We need chemists and climatologist at the EPA because people like you are intellectually lazy, selfish, short-sighted, and vote for much of the same, which leads to the tragedy of the commons, where we are pissing in our pool, and crapping in our cereal bowl. And then you have the nerve to ask why your Wheaties taste like shit and the pool water is yellow?

I spent last weekend cleaning litter off of a beach. People suck. Maybe birds do deserve more protection than people. In a related note, a swan on I-95 slowed traffic for my commute two days ago. Man that was funny! That did kind of make me wonder, I imagine it must have made the 6:00 news. Two police officers were out directing traffic and containing the bird! It's all about balance and being rational. You two seem to need some more experience and education in the world, in order to understand environmental regulation. I will admit, I do too. We all need to realize one can always take a step back when considering an issue such as this.

"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox

You two seem to need some more experience and education in the world, in order to understand environmental regulation.

Listen, dude... I'm not exactly sure what your deal is, or why you've chosen to throw all your shit my way... but I have never said that we do not need environmental laws. So save your little arrogant post for someone who needs it. I'm not interested in responding to your smart-ass demand for my resume to see if it matches your "qualifications." This type of "if you are not a scientist like me you cannot have a valid opinion" crap is incredibly stereotypical.

You don't know what I have, or have not done, in furtherance of environmental issues. So stick to what you know, and it ain't Jubelum.

A 24-minute fire in a pile of river debris in 1969 changed the entire fortune of the US environmental movement.

Uh.... so a new spirit of volunteerism was well on its way to solving the historic polluition problems on the Cuyahoga, but bad government regulation actually ended up enabling that pollution, and the resulting fire, which was actually just burning debris-- well, debris that ignited the oil (and, by the way, big deal, since the Cuyahoga was in the habit of regularly bursting into flame), led to broad adoption of bad regulation, which actually did clean up water ways, but in a bad wasteful way since insert unknown libertarian principle here could have done it better, cheaper, and faster, and apparently advance the state of pollution abatement technology as well.

Tell me more about the history of the alternative universe that conclusively proves the superiority of your ideology.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

insert unknown libertarian principle here
the history of the alternative universe
the superiority of your ideology.

You've become quite tiresome with your odious assumptions, adda. Not your usual quality. I linked to a story with the picture that answered the question I posed. You took that as me advocating their position. It wasn't.

The Clean Water Act, with resulted from the Cuyahoga River fire, et al, was a good thing. Necessary. Worthwhile. Wonderful even. A credit to our nation. There is no one who is going to take the stand that a river catching on fire is a good thing and should not be stopped. Apparently you think I should make some case or something for you to argue with. No dice. I, like most people on the right that share this planet with everyone else actually like, even love, clean water. Do you have any idea how much styrofoam and glass and chemicals in the river piss me off while I am kayaking on the weekends?

Apparently the Montgomery Burns cartoon is the one I am enduring in this episode.

The Clean Water Act, with resulted from the Cuyahoga River fire, et al, was a good thing. Necessary. Worthwhile. Wonderful even. A credit to our nation. There is no one who is going to take the stand that a river catching on fire is a good thing and should not be stopped. Apparently you think I should make some case or something for you to argue with. No dice. I, like most people on the right that share this planet with everyone else actually like, even love, clean water. Do you have any idea how much styrofoam and glass and chemicals in the river piss me off while I am kayaking on the weekends?

Dude. I'm responding to the article you linked to as your reference to the fire, which says more or less what I paraphrased. If you think that line of thought is indefensible, don't link to it.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.